User talk:Shaddim

Blocked

I have blocked you as a result of this discussion at ANI. You may appeal your block by following the procedures at WP:GAB. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thnaks I couldnt even finisk the discussion. :( Shaddim (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a consensus to block you, and further discussion was unlikely to change that and it was getting to the point where it was producing more heat than light. You can answer the concerns in the ANI in any unblock request. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I accept the block for the uncivil language. Still, I would like to have seen the behaviour of chrissymad as initial spark seen. oh, well. idefinitive sounds harsh. Shaddim (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

blocked answers

Comment: a decline would have been reasonable, per se. Unreasonable was: I interact with Chrissymad on some topic. She searches ("hounds") my history & starts another topic (and another). She comes in 6 minutes to ill-researched decision with no proper explanation that the draft is not worth. Shut down. Then she blocks, from me initiated discussion on my surprise of this fast decision, unilaterally. Someone who takes bold decision ("shut down drafts in minutes which were worked on weeks, which are alos not my domain") should be able to handle some (heated)discussion for some sentecnes without shuting it downShaddim (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"you cannot use download counters from software site archive pages to calculate totals using WP:OR" One can, counting is not OR Shaddim (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About counting and OR: The conclusion from counted numbers as something is popular is indeed some step further: but at some number it gets glaring obvious. 100,000s? millions? Number thresholds exist for notability in other domains: companies, sport clubs etc. Something like that would be approriate for games to, a topic I was wanting to discuss with the VG portal. Shaddim (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TODO =

https://www.reddit.com/r/Cityofheroes/comments/9db0hv/interesting_story_this_week_on_the_bombcast_about/

The use of this page to store a TODO list whilst you're blocked is inappropriate. I've protected it for 3 weeks, after which I would urge you to file an appeal. If you resume use of this page for generating TODO lists (or any other non block related discussion) I will remove talk page access by setting it as a block option and you will then need to appeal to ArbCom via e-mail or file an unblock request via UTRS. Nick (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I accept my block for the uncivil language. I will take one month of WP vaccation and will contemplate then about more effective discussion & interaction methods, which should reduce friction & improve the interaction with fellow editors.

Decline reason:

You don't seem to be asking to be unblocked. If you want to request to be unblocked in a month, you may make a new request at that time. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2018 (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.

unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I accept my block for the uncivil language. I took 1.5 month of WP vaccation and contemplated in detail and length about the incident and more effective discussion & interaction methods for me - I'm positive that I can prevent in future similar escalations more effectively, reducing communication frictions & misunderstandings and improve by that the interaction with my fellow editors.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Your request is too vague and does not convey knowledge of how you should/will interact in the future. Please fully address the issues that led to your block at the discussion at ANI, see Special:Permalink/858937774#IDHT_and_CIVIL_issues_with_Shaddim. Please explain in your own words what we mean by "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." Please explain what to do/not do if unsourced content is challenged and removed. Please explain what steps to take to resolve editorial disputes. Please read Wikipedia:Ownership of content and relate it to your block. (If I missed anything, concerned users should feel free to comment below.) Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2018 (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 just want to note that I strongly oppose an unblock at this time as there is no indication Shaddim understands the original issues which extend far beyond just incivility. Praxidicae (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]