User talk:Tabascoman77

Re: TDK

I'll explain this here as well. Talking about anything, based on your own observations, is original research and not allowed. The site is fine to list in the external links section, but we must have outside coverage of what went on with the site to put it in the article itself. This isn't like coming across something that says "The teaser trailer appeared in 10 out of 100 theaters" and then reporting that the trailer appeared in 10% of theaters. That's simple math, which doesn't require observation of any kind.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

On July 27th, the teaser trailer was released, attached to select prints of "The Simpsons Movie". Coincidentally, another viral site (entitled "Anticipation" and seemingly authored by "The Joker") debuted which features the same teaser trailer (in three high-quality HD formats) shown in theaters as well as a "bulletin" showing that "The Joker has been killed" and that "Gotham City PD can stand down". - The teaser appearing with the Simpsons, without a reliable source, is original research. You cannot simply say "it's there". I can't verify that, and since it isn't with every theater, it may not be with mine. Everything else there is original research. If someone wants to see the teaser, they can click the link in the external links section. This is not The Hire page, you do not get any leeway here. Provide a reliable source or stop adding the information. If you continue to add it without a source, I will report you for disruptive behavior.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for at least supplying a source for the teaser's inclusion with the movie. You still cannot describe the website. We dont' describe trailers, and we don't describe web pages. You need outside coverage discussing the marketing, you cannot do that yourself. It's indiscriminate information, because you do not establish a reason behind its inclusion of the page other than "fans would want to know". It's in the EL section, therefore people can click the link and view it themselves.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote what I wrote. I'm not describing the site. The original poster said that the trailer was released on the site. I corrected the line to erase the trailer description. He's not describing the site, he's mentioning that the teaser has been released on the site (which makes the site legit). That's in-line with the marketing portion of the article.

I'm not familiar with The Hire, but if you cannot find a source for something then it needs to be removed. I'm not planning on rushing over there to delete all the unsourced content (I viewed the page, so if I did that, then about 65-80% would probably have to go), but remember that if you cannot find something in the end, then it probably should be removed. Move it to the talk page and leave a note requesting someone to help find a source for it, if it's becoming difficult to find it yourself. If the only source you've found for something is a forum comment, then it wouldn't be considered a reliable source, per the criteria. If you cite a forum you might as well cite someone's Wikipedia talk page, because that's about as reliable as forums are considered. Anyone can say anything they want on a forum, and it's rather hard to authenticate identities if someone claims to part of the production crew (someone even higher up the tier).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Civility

How are you today? I just wanted to advise you that if you get into a heated disagreement, take some time away from that discussion to cool off. I've gotten embroiled in similar discussions before where other editors don't agree with me, and I know that it's frustrating. I'm not an angel myself, either, as I've spouted my share of uncivil remarks. However, in the long run, it's best to remain objective and to sometimes give in to others' actions. I'm not implying that you should give in here with The Dark Knight, but if no one is willing to give in, the discussion runs into a stalemate. In regard to the present situation, if you are still interested in pursuing the matter future, I would suggest requesting a third opinion. I hope you can be more polite in future discussions; it's only beneficial to be on good terms with other editors with whom you work, even if there has been a specific disagreement or two between you two in the past. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not attacking anybody. I am pointing out the unfortunate characteristics of the other contributors and how it is negatively effectively the ability to post anything resembling context inside of an article. I have already agreed to stop the discussion as there is no more point in discussing the matter at hand. It is getting to the point where I really do not want to contribute anymore because all I have run into is stonewalling and roadblocks in the form of the senior posters. And so it goes, guys. I have nothing more to say, I have vented enough, I've said my piece. I have nothing against any of you guys anymore. Peace. Tabascoman77 8:32 (PST), 30 July 2007

I would just like to say that I sympathize with your frustration. As I said before I think wikipedias image policy is seriously flawed and needs reform. I have had very similar battles with other editors on certain articles and it often feels less like there fighting me becuase they disagree with me and more like enforcing a dogmatic consensus. I have often lamented as you have about just giving up and conspiracy's by senior editors against me.

However, try too look at this in a positive light, at least the image was posted somewhere. I find that if you fight long enough you will eventually get some kinda compromise. You may not get what you want, but at least you won't get what you want.

There are some very unreasonable senior editors on wikipedia, but I find if your patient you will find some reasonable ones as well. Take Erik, I've had some disagreemnets with him, but I found out once I talked to him that he was a fairly reasonable person. It's important to try and be polite in your tone. Sure, I've gotten to the point where I've said screw politeness, but it hardly ever gets me anywhere.

I think the image in the way it was posted in this article felt awkward and out of place. Besides on the main article at this point in production we should probably wait until the film is closer to release to start posting a lot of pictures.

I agree with you however the image is fair use and that those who say it isn't are fools. However, I no longer have the strength to debate wikipedia image policy.

I just want to say that for the future try and be less angry in your tone. I'm not saying you shouldn't get angry if theres justification, just that you'd be suprised how much more receptive people get around here when you ask nicely.annoynmous 17:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

We can start over if you remember that my name is Erik, not Eric. :) I was gone for the weekend, so I was able to come back to TDK with an objective eye. Otherwise, I might have been as combative as Bignole. Considering that he and I have fairly strong credentials (as well as Alientraveller, who was in agreement with us), we tend to profess that we know what we're talking about. Image use has been a slippery slope; I don't always agree with the criteria, as I'm fully aware that multiple movie sites display copyrighted images without a problem. The nature of Wikipedia, I guess, is to make image use relevant. I've actually combated an admin in the past against the deletion of a soundtrack cover image at a film article, but the fact that an admin was going around criticizing usage of non-free images made me mindful of the crackdown. (I call them wikihounds, and I suppose I may have become one myself.) Instead of what that admin and other editors have done by brusquely removing images that have sat in film articles for a while, I'm doing a different approach in which up-and-coming articles have unquestionable rationales for their non-free images. I believe I've done this appropriately at Sunshine (2007 film) and other film articles that I'm developing. I guess my perspective is that if the usage of a non-free image can be critiqued, then the case for it may not be so strong in the first place. I personally think that the IMAX and Batpod images will be longer-lasting in the article than the recent Joker image. Hypothetically, if the Joker image were in the article, it would undoubtedly be replaced in the very near future by something better. Anyway, that's how I've perceived usage of non-free images here on Wikipedia, and we don't have to debate this any further if you don't want to.

In case you haven't noticed, I've taken you off the customer list and placed your ErikBigNolePedia mention in a Miscellaneous section on my user page for the time being. I was not offended by anything that you directed at me or Bignole, I just did not care to have discussion with you based on your tone. My skin is thick enough to weather quite a few criticisms, on Wikipedia or IRL. :) I apologize if you feel shafted by "senior" editors (first time I've been called that, really); we tend to steward the articles as if it could undergo the FAC process any moment. To be honest, Bignole and Alientraveller are terrific people once you get to know them. I think that our methodology can come off as "anal and stubborn", but we just adhere to the rules strongly enough so the work in which we're involved can stand the test of time. I hope we can meet on better terms in the future. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The Dark Knight

Just wanted to let you know that I've been watching the Dark Knight talk page, and I completely agree with you. I wouldn't have pursued the argument as much as you did, and I admire you for keeping it up in the face of opposition from the senior editors. I think that the fact that it is informative about the subject is reason enough to add info to an article, but obviously the others do not think this way. Just wanted to say that I'm on your side if you ever need votes for a poll or anything. Your friend, One Fried Egg 21:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Bonds

Actually, I think the sentence you sent me is pretty good at summarizing what Bond's said. We can quote, but the point of Wikipedia is to try and paraphrases as much as we can, and if we can, then we should. I think the sentence on my talk page works well (I read the quote that was on the main Ecko page as well, just so you know I wasn't simply reading what you wrote).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, but "Verifiabullys" was a close one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Hire

I'll take a look when I have time today -- I have a long day today (Monday is the heavyweight of the week for me). Just some quick notes: The Infobox seems to have an overload of information where it should be concise -- can the names be narrowed down, and perhaps have mini-Infoboxes for each short film? That would make it more readable and easier to attribute. I would also suggest ensuring that there is a citation at the end of every paragraph, and also to use Template:Cite news and Template:Cite web. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of any instances of short film articles that are structured well -- you might have to take the lead in this case! :) I think that it may be better to structure the article after a TV show's seasonal article. Take a look at Smallville (season 1) (Bignole's work) and how it lays out the episodes. Instead of Title / Writer(s) / Director(s) / Airdate / Ep. #, you could do something like Title / Main Actor(s) / Director / Vehicle. I would suggest, though, moving all the IMDb links to the end of the article, as external links are supposed to be placed there. Maybe you could ask Bignole to see if he can't edit the table to fit your attributes and color preferences (I'd suggest a similar blue to the short-film poster), so you can put in the short film information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You can cite one reference multiple times. Take a look at Valkyrie (film)#References -- I'm not sure if you're familiar with the method, but you can see "a b c" letters preceding some lines. Clicking on them separately will show where the reference is cited in the article. Here's a sample breakdown, with code showing:

• <ref name="strike">{{cite news | author=Chris Isidore | url=http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/24/news/companies/gm_uaw_strikedeadline/index.htm?cnn=yes | title=73,000 workers walk in nationwide GM strike | publisher=[[CNN]] | date=[[2007-09-24]] | accessdate=2007-09-24 }}</ref>
• <ref name="strike" />
• <ref name="strike" />
• (and so forth)

Let me know if you are familiar with this method or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to ask Bignole about what happened with screenshots for lists of episodes on Wikipedia. (In a nutshell: They were mass-purged due to insufficient fair use rationale.) Basically, if there is real world commentary on an image from the film, then it's more indisputably kept. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide context about the look and style of each short film, I think you'll be fine. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome

That's part of what makes editing fun, Tabasscoman - not just learning new stuff and making something interesting, but meeting and helping out other interesting people. I am not sure where else I have helped you out, but it seems like you do the same thing with others. Good job on that. I will see you around. If you run into difficulties, please let me know. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)`

The Joker

You may be pleased to know that we have a picture of the Joker at The Dark Knight (film) -- with critical commentary, no less! :) We verifiabullies do get around to our promises. How's the editing going? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I got my satisfied customers mixed up! You're right, the article needed to represent the Joker -- now the next worry is a picture of Two-Face. We'll have to go around that block again. :) Congratulations on improving The Hire -- it looks like you've got some masterful content about the topic. If you're interested, I can research the topic for you, especially for print sources. When I started editing, I relied entirely on online sources, but I've learned to research print sources, which have a bit more information about a topic. Work on The Dark Knight (film) goes well, though an editor had some concerns with the encyclopedic tone. It's got me thinking how to reword that because I think the problem with gradually increasing the article with new information is that we don't balance it from a historical perspective. It's too chronological, you know? "In August, this happened, and in October, this happened..." I'll have to come up with a way to address that tone. Otherwise, I'm trying to branch out from the superhero/sci-fi films. I updated Body of Lies (film) as much as possible today, and I have a zillion Google Alerts to set up for headlines of future films that look to be critically acclaimed or blockbusters. An editor's work is definitely never done, not on Wikipedia! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you're off to a good start with Luther Stickell. I'd suggest providing some real-world context to substantiate the character -- for example, the conception behind him and how he's been received in the films. Wikipedia tends to frown on fiction that's written without utilizing secondary sources. You should check out items like Jack Sparrow and Jason Voorhees to see what I mean -- I doubt that Luther Stickell would warrant content as much as these two, but if you provided similar coverage, the article would be even better. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, because Alientraveller wrote up on Jack Sparrow, and Bignole wrote up on Jason Voorhees -- other folks from The Dark Knight (film). :) I haven't had much experienced in fictional character writing, but you should contact Bignole for advice. He's presently working on fictional character articles of horror film icons. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to include summary detail that may not be seen as important as the general development of the character, you may want to ensure that it's backed with real-world context. According to WP:NOT#PLOT, "Summary descriptions of plot, characters and settings are appropriate only in the context of real-world information, not when they are the sole content of an article or told entirely from an in-universe perspective." An idea of how to provide context is to listen to DVD commentaries (if they exist); I wouldn't be surprised if they talked about the technology that Luther uses in the films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:VinginSurma.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:VinginSurma.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 03:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mission screen004.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mission screen004.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. & Mrs. Smith

OK I'm sorry if you got annoyed of my removal of the differences. I don't want to go over the whole "original research" crap, but that is part of the reason that I removed it. If you think it should be on the page, then just keep it. (Wikirocks (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

OK, well I take credit for deleting it, but I don't remember changing it into "trivia". Well it was a while ago so maybe I forgot. (Wikirocks (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

thanks

thanks for your comments. i haven't really done much on the BB article in a while, besides occasionally reverting vandals. but i'll take this as an entre to 'bury the hatchet', which i'm certainly fine with doing. after whats-his-name the designer did the whole online vote and alleged branding of the ball, it certainly became more notable and reasonable for inclusion in the article. in the grander scheme of things, the disagreement amounts to one small hill of beans. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Paranormal Activity

Hello, Tabascoman77. You have new messages at Erik's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback: Spoilers

Hello, Tabascoman77. You have new messages at Talk:Paranormal Activity (film).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Elen of the Roads clarified the issue for me. Feel free to delete my clutter off your talk page! — SpikeToronto (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Tabascoman77. You have new messages at Talk:Paranormal Activity (film).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to WrestleMania XXX may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• usos-vs-rybaxel-tag-team-title-match-announced|publisher=Cageside Seats|accessdate=24 March 2014}}</ref>
• |}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Your comments at WP:ANI are among the stranger comments that I have seen in response to block suggestions. You say that the community has no power to block you, and that you will appeal any block and will still publish the story. My advice, which you apparently don't want, is to try to be respectful and to show a willingness to edit collaboratively. However, if you are no longer interested in Wikipedia, why are you making so much noise defying the community's ability to block you? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Either say something that isn't deliberately confrontational, or say nothing at all. Just one editor's advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't edit there anymore, outside of small tweaks if I notice something is misspelled or incorrect in phrasing. The article in question will be about Zoe Quinn and GamerGate as well as the unwillingness of the media to portray any of it accurately. This will include the lumping of MRA's, misogynists and 4Chan trolls into the same group of people who have criticized game journalism for years, regardless of gender or issue.

I don't see a reason to want to collaborate with any of the four people I've mentioned, simply because there's no point in doing so. For the past month, I've watched them browbeat other editors into submission, including TitaniumDragon, which ultimately lead to him getting Doxxed which, as you know, flies contrary to Wikipedia's rules. Also, just stating "It's against BLP" doesn't make it so. I watched one of them use that line. He wouldn't allow a source from Al Jazeera of all places. Why? "It doesn't have a byline." Yeah...and...? Another complaint? "Nobody cares who Quinn slept with". Well, that doesn't matter much. Because it IS relevant. You can't create a controversy and report one side, claiming that you're simply reporting things in some neutral fashion -- only reporting the harassment. The article NEEDS to be neutral. But everything has fallen on deaf ears. That's perfectly fine. Article is being written, regardless, and the editors here can huff and puff all they want. It's not a threat. No personal info is being released. I am simply reporting what I think is the correct POV. If they can do that here, I can do that on my own news site. Have fun. TabascoMan77 (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 24 hours for violations of WP:BLP. On ANI, you were specifically warned against using Wikipedia as a forum to level unsubstantiated allegations against living individuals, and you went ahead and repeated those same allegations against Quinn on Titanium Dragon's talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Posting facts got me banned? I said that Eron accused Quinn (which both Guardian and WaPo covered) and that Eron had posted evidence on his page of such a thing. Those are facts. But, you're not interested in those. BTW, thank you for cause for an ANI Harassment charge, since you're now stalking me across ANI, Titanium Dragon and my own talk page. You need to calm down, Gamaliel. You're out of control. TabascoMan77 (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my reign of terror preventing people from posting unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing continues unchecked. Gamaliel (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is really inappropriate to block someone who says they are going to write an article for a news outlet criticizing you, especially since there are already legitimate concerns about you being too involved in this topic area to be taking any action.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

But it's okay to use Wikipedia as a forum to make accusations against living individuals and to try to manipulate other editors by threatening them with offsite harassment through what is undoubtedly first rate journalism? Even if you put aside your long-standing animus towards me, I find it impossible to take you seriously when you refuse to address the underlying reasons that make these actions necessary. Gamaliel (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

But it's okay to use Wikipedia as a forum to make accusations against living individuals...

You know damn well that isn't true. I said that Eron Gjoni accused Quinn and named the source that came from (WaPo & Guardian) and that Eron Gjoni had evidence that Quinn did what he said she did. Both statements are true and factually backed by Reliable Sources. You are abusing WP:BLP and you know it.

and to try to manipulate other editors by threatening them with offsite harassment through what is undoubtedly first rate journalism?

I never bribed nor manipulated anyone using the article I am sourcing and writing. Not once. You are deliberately lying to justify this ridiculous block and it also further proves that your block was Punitive in nature. TabascoMan77 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've examined the now redacted edit you were blocked for and I fully agree with Gamaliel on this block. You clearly violated BLP by making direct accusations in violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. If you persist in making false accusations against others here on your talk page, as you have by calling Gamaliel a liar, I'll increase your block and remove your ability to edit your own talk page. I suggest you retract your accusations above. Dreadstar ☥ 01:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't make the accusations. I stated that Gjoni made them as per articles I had already posted. Are we all supposed to pretend that Gjoni didn't do this now? TabascoMan77 (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, your edit disagrees with you. Dreadstar ☥ 01:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This is bias. You were involved in this before you declined my request. Do I have to find another admin to look at this? One who isn't involved? Because this is clearly Harassment and Bullying now. Gamaliel did lie. He completely misrepresented what I've done, as I explained it numerous times. And it's clear that you are fraternizing with him as shown by the clear bias. [User:Tabascoman77|TabascoMan77]] (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think someone other than you should be deciding what actions are necessary on this subject per WP:INVOLVED. That goes for Dreadstar as well, who should not be declining unblocks related to this topic due to his own WP:INVOLVED issues.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you stop interfering, you're merely inflaming the situation. And no, I'm not WP:INVOLVED. Dreadstar ☥ 03:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Dreadstar, you were WP:INVOLVED in the comments here and in the parties surrounding Anita Sarkeesian, GamerGate and Zoe Quinn.([1], [2]) I know this because you already stated it on your own talk page months ago. [3] Not only that, you continue to say I've made "false accusations" without stating what accusations I've made or where I've made them, which is a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. Also, your immediate dismissal of my Unblock is inflammatory, without explanation and you're continuing to badger me and threaten more blocks in retaliation for my protests which violate WP:HARASS and WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE, plus using vaguely threatening language toward The Devil's Advocate. Furthermore, it's clear to me (and to a few others) that you've overstepped your boundaries more than once and bullied and harassed in the past, as well as made personal attacks.[4], [5], [6], [7] Because of you and others, I have your ridiculous bullshit block. Do I need to list anything else or are you still going to pretend you aren't WP:INVOLVED? As an aside, I really appreciate you coming to my defense in this matter, The Devil's Advocate. Boys and girls, here's what ol' Uncle Tabasco learned from today's block: It's painfully obvious that Wikipedia is not the way it used to be. WP:BLP is being completely misconstrued and misused and used blindly to shut people up. That's a violation of WP:BULLY. The harassment and bullying rules exist in name only, applicable when it benefits the views and opinions of the admins and the editors they're friends with...but it doesn't matter. I've learned nothing from this block except that admins are bullies who don't listen to anyone but themselves. Oh, wait, that's another Wiki Violation: "IDON'THEAR". Once again, thanks, Devil. I'm over this bullshit. TabascoMan77 (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you kind of are involved. Whether Gamaliel believes his action was justified or not, it was not appropriate for him to block Tabasco. No one could possibly argue that this situation is being handled tactfully.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Template:Z33 Dreadstar ☥ 22:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Referring to Zoe Quinn, Gamergate controversy, Anita Sarkeesian and related articles and edits, but note this this alert applies to all edits related to the area identified above. Dreadstar ☥ 22:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for not being here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  PhilKnight (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Note about this block

This year, your involvement in this project has clearly been an overall negative. You have argued incessantly, and introduced problems in regard to the Biography of Living Person policy, but you have done almost nothing useful. PhilKnight (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Note to other admins

Feel free to unblock without contacting me. PhilKnight (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Tabascoman77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Not quite sure why I'm being blocked here. I already served a 24-hour block for WP:BLP and the last discussion I attended was in WP:GOODFAITH, which I explained. The last "indef block" request was shut down as WP:NOBODYCARES. I can't "contribute to building an encyclopedia" if every single thing I do is viewed as an "attack". Would somebody kindly explain a second block to me, please? TabascoMan77 (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Not quite sure why I'm being blocked here. I already served a 24-hour block for [[WP:BLP]] and the last discussion I attended was in [[WP:GOODFAITH]], which I explained. The last "indef block" request was shut down as [[WP:NOBODYCARES]]. I can't "contribute to building an encyclopedia" if every single thing I do is viewed as an "attack". Would somebody kindly explain a second block to me, please? [[User:Tabascoman77|TabascoMan77]] ([[User talk:Tabascoman77#top|talk]]) 15:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Not quite sure why I'm being blocked here. I already served a 24-hour block for [[WP:BLP]] and the last discussion I attended was in [[WP:GOODFAITH]], which I explained. The last "indef block" request was shut down as [[WP:NOBODYCARES]]. I can't "contribute to building an encyclopedia" if every single thing I do is viewed as an "attack". Would somebody kindly explain a second block to me, please? [[User:Tabascoman77|TabascoMan77]] ([[User talk:Tabascoman77#top|talk]]) 15:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Not quite sure why I'm being blocked here. I already served a 24-hour block for [[WP:BLP]] and the last discussion I attended was in [[WP:GOODFAITH]], which I explained. The last "indef block" request was shut down as [[WP:NOBODYCARES]]. I can't "contribute to building an encyclopedia" if every single thing I do is viewed as an "attack". Would somebody kindly explain a second block to me, please? [[User:Tabascoman77|TabascoMan77]] ([[User talk:Tabascoman77#top|talk]]) 15:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Really, Phil? So, you just happened to wander by and block me for no reason whatsoever? Is that really what you're going to do? I was blocked for 24 hours for another WP:BLP infraction (that wasn't an infraction at all -- I simply repeated what the media had reported about Eron Gjoni and used links that Wikipedia had already USED[8][9]. I appealed, it was declined, then lifted. So, I decide to come back and "contribute" peacefully. I post this to the Controversy Talk Page, thinking either side would be able to mine it for valid source links once in a while as a gesture of WP:GOODFAITH and it was immediately dismissed as WP:BLP and redacted. THEN, after I get condescended to by Tarc (who gets away with murder on the GamerGate Talk Pages with violations of WP:CIVILITY daily) and I KINDLY ask him/her for a bit of Civility, he/she deletes my comment from their talk page, dismiss me as an "angry gamer", then compare me to the Unabomber as a "reason"...and I'M the one getting an Indef Block here? What happened to this place? Wikipedia used to be a nice place to come to. That's why I edited the articles on my main page. But, the moment I wade into the GamerGate controversy, presenting the idea of neutrality, which runs opposite of the the POV Tarc and the others don't agree with, I, along with several others such as The Devil's Advocate, diego and Titanium Dragon, are dismissed as "SPA/Angry Gamer Trolls" and we're treated like absolute dirt and targeted with bans, blocks, threats of bans and blocks and condescending behavior. Do your realize how hostile an environment this has become? It presents the notion that no editor can do much of anything because a mob mentality exists and always wins. For years, I defended Wikipedia to other people, citing neutrality and source-mining. The tactics by editors and admins at Wikipedia have proved the points of the people who criticize this place. This disgusts me to no end. If you want to Indef Ban me because of Mob Mentality Rules, be my guest. I have lost all faith in Wikipedia's editing policy enforcement tactics. TabascoMan77 (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You were blocked for 24h for posting an external weblink that so egregiously violated WP:BLP policy that simply reverting wasn't enough, it had to be oversighted, i.e. purged from the page history completely. After that block expired, you did it again with another atrocious link (I saw it before it was wiped) to the Gamergate controversy talkpage, one that the Oversight Committee had to, yet again, purge from the page history. If this is typical of the actions you are going to undertake on this project. then I can full well see why your editing rights have been revoked. An indefinite block is not a permanent block; if you can convince an admin that you're aware that your actions were wrong, and that the behavior will cease going forward, perhaps one will agree to an unblock. IMO it kinda depends on if your word can be trusted. Tarc (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

What "external weblink" was this (the first time)? And the second one I posted was something I thought the community could use (which I fully explained) because I figured it could be mined for valid sources by ALL of you, not just one side. TabascoMan77 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Well, going by Special:Contributions/Tabascoman77, you said something objectionable at 15:20 30 Sept 2014; I assumed it was a link somewhere, so if not, then it was the words themselves that were offensive? I dunno, only you know what you said. As for the link you posted to Talk:Gamergate controversy, it was a laundry list of links to blogs and chan archives, much of it containing pretty nasty and vile stuff said about Quinn, Grayson, et al. It was neither useful nor appropriate. Tarc (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah! That's where I asked Titanium Dragon about further sources about Gjoni's accusations since The Guardian[10]and The Washington Post[11] weren't enough. Tell me: are either of those two sources, "objectionable"? Or do you think those links actually warranted a WP:BLP block? Because that's exactly what I posted to Dragon's page. I only ask because they've already been used here. TabascoMan77 (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the blocking admin as to what his/her rationale was. Nothing else for me to say here, really, was just pointing out why this one came about. Tarc (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute, that link was suppressed? Absolutely ridiculous. I saw the link in question and read the blog post. Did you read it Tarc? This was not even remotely the kind of thing that is eligible for suppression and I am seriously skeptical about even revision deletion being appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

TDA, the part where I said "I saw it before it was wiped" wasn't really ambiguous, was it? The site in question had links to archived 4chan threads. Need I say more? Tarc (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

And I wasn't asking for that portion to be used in any way, shape, or form. I said to mine the page for any useful or verifiable/reliable source links. But rather than pay attention to that, you just went and said "go block". Need I say more? TabascoMan77 (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it matters anymore, Devil. WP:BLP is the Official Baseball Bat of Wikipedia now. It's used to justify even the most bullshit blocks. And I categorically refuse to be drawn into some bullshit "apology" where I get on my knees and beg and plead and tell them "I won't do it again". This is absolute fucking garbage. I can understand WP:BLP in regards to actually putting it on a page. It's something else entirely to say, "There might be some useful information in here if we sift through the crap" and present the link. I didn't post the fucking link to accuse anyone of anything. I've made that considerably clear. This block needs to be removed. I'm tired of this shit. I'm sick of blocks being put on me for no reason other than spite. I'm sick of ad hominem, broad-brush attacks where I'm compared to people I don't resemble in any way. ANI Indef Block request on me because we don't like what he said about us? Check! But allowing ad hominem attacks from Ryulong, Tarc, and several others in response to trying to calmly suggest changes so that the article is neutral? THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. It's one thing to make me aware of how and when WP:BLP is used and to sufficiently warn me of the details before hitting the "block" button. It's another to say "BLP", then use it as a bludgeon with no other warning. Once again, Devil, I thank you for your support. They're probably going to let my unblock appeal rot in hell at this point. What a shame. I've actually done good at Wikipedia and this whole experience has left a sour taste in my mouth. TabascoMan77 (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a rather mighty struggle at the moment to assume good faith regarding this matter, but...ok, let's lay this out. You posted a link to a blog-like website that discussed Gamergate, yes? And this site had on it a great variety of links to it...to news articles, to blogs, to message boards, and to 4chan archives? Your contention is that you posted it with the intention that editors here could look through it and just use the "good" links while ignoring the "bad" links. Do you not see that as problematic, that you're linking to bad material even though you say "don't look at that" ? If a cop stops and frisks me, can I say "sure go ahead; the stuff I have in my left pocket is ok, but whatever you find in my right pocket, don't hold me accountable for that". ? Tarc (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Bad analogy. Here's a better one: I bring you a bunch of apples that fell from my tree in the backyard. I say, "Hey, I'm giving these apples to you guys. Some of them are probably bruised or otherwise inedible for some reason but there might be some in here you can eat or use in a pie. You just have to go through this bucket and pick which ones you want." But, hey, I'm a shifty asshole whose intentions are questionable. The ultimate point is: I don't care about who is right or who is wrong. If I wanted to do harm to the article, I would have vandalized it or posted something in the article with the link that was pulled. But I didn't do that I refuse to do that. TabascoMan77 (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's a counter-analogy. You have a bowl of candy for trick-or-treaters; some of the candy is perfectly fine, while some have razor blades in them. If a kid picks a razor blade, it isn't your fault, right? This is like a singular variation of the Dunning–Kruger effect; your pro-Gamergate bias is so extreme that you're completely incompetent when it comes to assessing the harm you do to living people posting crap like that. Un-watching this page after this. Good luck with that unblock. Tarc (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Another stunningly bad analogy. And a loaded question at the end to boot! Thanks for that. First, the articles in question are not harmful to you in any way. I'm asking you to inspect the items in question, not sit there, e-mailing them to Zoe Quinn and her respective allies in order to cause them all mental stress and harm. It is apparent that your logical reasoning skills are severely lacking. I don't have a "pro-Gamergate" bias or else I would be fighting harder to include sources that went against Quinn AND policy. The only bias and anger here is coming from you. You come in here and say things like, "Get the pom poms, TDA" and screaming, "BIAS!" at the top of your lungs, dismissing me as an "angry gamer" and vaguely saying that I'm incompetent -- the only one suffering from some perceived disorder is yourself. You can read all about it here -- but you won't. You've already turned tail and run away. Do me a favor: calm down, take a breath and drop the ego -- especially on the Gamergate page. You've already been warned, by admins, for your incivility to others in the past. In short, stop acting like an asshole. TabascoMan77 (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not ask if you saw it. I asked if you read it. The links to archived 4chan threads were because the whole post was responding to claims about the nature of 4chan's involvement in GamerGate and so proving what was being said at 4chan made it apt. Nothing in the 4chan threads would seem to warrant suppression, however, even if those were the links being posted as opposed to the blog post.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If you don't see the harm in what was contained in those 4chan archives, then you are hopelessly obtuse. Dust off your pom-poms TDA, this guy will need all the cheerleading he can get to get unblocked. Tarc (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The 4chan archives included some of the typical name-calling one expects of 4chan, but beyond that I am not seeing anything that justifies suppression. If the 4chan archives were being directly linked by Tabasco you might have a point about revision deletion, but it is the blog post that links to them in order to rebut allegations regarding the nature of 4chan's involvement in GamerGate. Arguing about a link going to a blog post that has some links that have some derogatory comments is stretching the policy well beyond its intentions. Nothing contained in the blog post itself warrants revision deletion, let alone suppression. Many innocuous links are included.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)