User talk:Imasku

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

RE; this is my talk page

Please note, this is my talk page. If there are any more attacks made on me, by anyone everything on this talk page will be removed Imasku (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update- Decision Final - Good Riddance Wikipedia Imasku (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate this account being permanently deleted. Imasku (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Your recent editing history 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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.

You've reverted three times without any edit summary, or any constructive comment on the talk page. Any more of this, and you're going to be blocked for edit warring or disruptive editing. No more warnings on this sort of thing. You need to discuss contructively, or remove yourself from the situation. Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

still threatening and bullying me, all of which has been reported to wikipedia 21 March 2017.Imasku (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC) I do not see burian getting told he cannot do edits, but if I do on an article I created this is how I am treated. I do not ever remember in any other article having to discuss edits on the talk page only this one as I am be biased against -- I have also provided all the proof. period. Imasku (talk)[reply]

I have done nothing of the sort. I have acted as as admin would - I've repeatedly warned you about breaking Wikipedia policy, and notified you that continuing to ignore policy will lead to you being blocked from editing. Any knowledgeable editor who were to review my actions would see it this way as well.

You have done absolutely nothing to explain your stance. A simple browsing of your contributions show exactly what you've done. You didn't edit for a week. In that time, another editor made changes you apparently did not like. You've reverted three times. You've left 2 comments on the talk page now, neither of them explaining in any detail why you object to them, just that you object to them.

Final chance. You need to directly articulate what you object to in Peter's edits. None of this "I've already explained it". No one in that discussion, myself included, can locate what you're referring to. Rewrite it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Object to I have explained the name change: Chantry's name is Chantry Island Lightstation Tower not lighthouse. Rewrite it, maybe the editors should learn to read and scroll through documentation. The actual terms for: lighthouse, lightstation, are in those links. Also the Canadian government listing as an Station- hence with a lightstation on it.Imasku (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually expected you to side with burian, that is all you have done in all this, maybe its time for another Admin on this Imasku (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They held a discussion on renaming the article right on the talk page. It ran for a number of days, and went unopposed, so they made the change. You can't blame them for that, you're the one who neglected to pariticipate, and they had no reasonable expectation to wait for you, considering how many times you announced that you were permanently leaving Wikipedia last week.

I wrote directly to wikipedia why I was against this name change on the 21 March 2017, including the changing of the article how I wrote it, before you actually changed the name. I did not go to any talk page as I am rather tired of being bullied, threatened and attacked by others , (including you) Imasku (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to oppose it, but since you failed to participate in the last discussion, you now need to start up a new discussion, lay out your argument, and only change it back if there is consensus to do so. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is not that I've "sided with Burian". Its the fact that I've repeatedly made efforts to mediate and inform you both about policy. Every single time, he listens to what I have to say, and works it into his approach. Conversely, every single time with you, you've rejected to advice on policy and discussion, refused to discuss in specific detail, and instead spent all of your time talking about "leaving Wikipedia forever" or baselessly complaining about not getting your way or getting bullied. There's not an Admin on the website that's going to help you act like this. Again, I have no reason to favor Burian. I have no prior biases or interest in lighthouses. I have no stake in this. Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

my mistake it is alright for burian to get his way ? There is only so much I can say without jeopardizing my current work and I will NOT for wikipedia. Maybe its time for a new administrator. Imasku (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that Burian automatically should "get his way" - you're free to challenge Burian. But you need to engage him in meaningful discussion. Not just write over and over again about how you don't like his changes. Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in a kind gentle reminder, that is what was done to me when burian took this to mediation. I have challenged this right now, might I add with proof, 7 links of it. Explaining what a lighthouse is and what a lightstation are and the distinct differences. If an editor has to scroll through the documentation to locate it so be it. I have just been ordered to completely walk away from this by my editor and advisors, no matter what I try to do this is going to be an edit war, as the editor that chose to completely change the article, now owns this article. If the information is now wrong contained in the article, I guess they get to deal with it. I repaired the one link that did not work. Imasku (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC) 18:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you've got two options:

Start a new discussion at the article talk page, (click here to do so)and in detail, explain your reasoning on why the article title should change back. Rewrite your stances. List out your links to sources that prove your point. (Don't just say "I gave 7 links already." Don't just say "look at my edits for the proof" Explain it again. Present them again.) Then repeat for any other changes you've made in the large chunks of content you keep reverting.
Drop it, and walk away.

But as I've said, if you once again opt out of discussion, and then continue to revert people's edits on the article, you're going to be blocked from editing. You cannot opt out of discussions, but opt in to making your edits against other's will. That is not allowed. Sergecross73 msg me 18:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

user:sergecross73 user:ferret For a last explanation before I leave, it was said to me it is policy/ protocol that changes have to be discussed on the talk page first. Check the article talk page and the edit history back to 28 February 2017, and you will find only one discussion from (burian) on the talk page regarding one of the lightkeepers. They then made considerable changes to the article at that time, that involved more than asking about a lightkeeper. When I reverted all the changes in March, did they (not me) start this fight, first I am threatened with mediation, then I was attacked over my image, then finally edit war. Should be no surprise that I feel an article I had already previously in August researched and completely written, (which I created) including image, from start to finish, that did not require editing, was destroyed by another editor. That same editor decided I cannot write a proper article and that without them, it is and I quote exactly what was written by them... This article was not adequate to be even rated as START level... before they arrived. Who are they on here or thinks they are, to decide if this/ or any article is written accurately or not? God? However, I am the one that is threatened, bullied and attacked over this, including being threatened with not being able to edit any longer. Why I suggested maybe it was time for another Administrator to become involved. Any wonder why I am upset and fed up? Why I kept trying to ensure the legal name was used for the Lightstation Tower and not the slang it has become referred to over the years? I can only hope now the real name remains somewhere in the article as the other editor has continued to challenge that. I completely understand now protocol applies only to women editors on wikipedia not men, that has been made very clear. Is it really any surprise why I now choose not to remain?? Really that difficult to understand or my reactions through this entire situation? I do not use wiki enough, I am just a researcher and writer, somewhere on here these types of situations really need to be brought to whomever's attention and dealt with and new policies created for all to adhere too, or you will continue to lose researchers that are in fact good. Imasku (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly believe the article has been "destroyed" than you need to explain your reasoning on the article talk page not here, where nobody will see it. Theroadislong (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the expectation isn't "ask on the talk page first every time". The expectation is, you need to discuss on the talk page "every time someone disagrees with someone's changes. It's explained at WP:BRD. The burden keeps falling on you because Peter keeps on making the initial Bold move, (he is free to do) and you keep doing the Revert step, which you are free to do, but when you do that, you need to do the Discuss step. Because you refuse to engage in meaningful, specific discussion, and frequently threaten to permanently leave, and proceed to leave for days, Peter ends up moving forward with his edits.
I'm sorry if policies have been unclear to you, but I've tried to explain things to you, and you've just flat out ignored me and refused For example, I explained exactly how to go about proposing changing the name back to the "Lightstation Tower" one. As of writing this, you have refused to even attempt the correct avenue. I can't help you any more than that. You have no right to complain if I've explained the process, and you've refused to even try it.
I also don't believe its fair to bring gender into things. You've blamed Burian for assuming you were male at one point, and now you're accusing him of treating you different because you're female? It can't be both. I don't think its either. Your arguments have nothing to do with gender, nor do the progression of the discussions. Every time there's a dispute, if Burian gets his way, its not because he's a man. Its because he follows specific protocol (re-explaining his argument, re-presenting his specific sources) while you refuse to do so, and commonly instead just threaten to leave. That's on your actions.
Its fundamentally not harassment or bullying to warn you to follow the website's rules. Its something everyone needs to do, and it happens to anyone who continually ignores basic policy advice. You need to follow the rules and protocols of this website, or you lose the privilege to edit it.
I'm getting tired of having these same discussions with you. Either go about things the right way, or drop it and move on to something else. Its as simple as that. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Imasku. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]