User talk:DL6443/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:DL6443. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Welcome!

Hello, SlitherioFan2016, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to E233 series. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! DAJF (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

There is a Request for Comments on motion picture rating colors that you may wish to participate in. Please do not make any changes to the color scheme in use on the article without first discussing the matter on the talk page. Thank you. Robevans123 (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I will be happy to. Anyway why are we reducing the amount of colors from 8 to 5? Can't we discuss a new 8-color scheme with accessibility standards instead? --SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Your recent editing history at Video game rating system 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 article's 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. Betty Logan (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Motion picture rating system 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 article's 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. Betty Logan (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

SlitherioFan2016, in my opinion you might avoid a block if you will agree to make no further edits at Motion picture rating system for the next four weeks. If you agree, you should respond at ANI. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I do agree. However can you please show me where to reply because I looked on ANI and only found my investigation. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SlitherioFan2016 Socking/edit-warring/using misleading edit summaries. You should be able to open that thread for editing and then leave your own comment. EdJohnston (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Motion picture rating system 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. Betty Logan (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop editing the colors

I don't know if you don't understand or if you are playing games, but either way, stop editing that article. Period. Do not change the colors. Do not revert. Do not make another edit or I will seek sanctions against you. Cease editing immediately. --Tarage (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

It is now my turn to not understand something. Do you have a particular period for this topic ban or is it an indefinite one? By the way, am I not able to constructively contribute to content ratings topics anymore? SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Your contributions of edit warring were not constructive. If you cannot understand that, you should not edit. --Tarage (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tarage: Thanks. Now I understand. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for unblock on 27 November 2016

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).

DL6443 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@EdJohnston: In my opinion, this one-week block is not really needed. I didn't understand the policies on moving pages, and if you looked on my contribution in my signature you could see that I edited the color scheme to consensus, not against it. Now I understand that accessibility is not optional and takes a higher priority of someone's idea of aesthetics. Furthermore, I have an interest in trains. Maybe I should join the Trains category and not disruptiveIy touch the Film category and color scheme. And, if a train page DID have a color schemed table, then I may be able to use the colors better to make the table more accessible than it is now. I think this 1-week block has taught me something – under no circumstances may I be edit-warring and breaking the 3RR again. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

SlitherioFan2016, after reviewing your editing history, I'm deeply concerned that you are not able to fundamentally understand what is happening. You were clearly reverting back to older versions of the color scheme on that page which did not have consensus in the RFC. This is right after ignoring the RFC and coming up with a completely different approach. Each time you reverted others to retain your preferred version. You keep saying you'll do something, then you take the opposite action. I would strongly suggest limiting yourself to that article's talk page, and making proposals that gain consensus instead of taking seemingly random actions on the article itself. I see nothing wrong with the block, and it may help you to take some time to gather your thoughts. Kuru (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2016 (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.

It feels as if the admins have made up their minds not to life the block. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am not inclined to lift the block because I've been disappointed with SlitherioFan2016's past assurances. See the first ANI complaint from October 24 and the AN3 closure that led to this block. His above statement "Now I understand that accessibility is not optional" suggests he must not have been understanding it all the other times this has been discussed. This has been going on for a month now. See the series of discussions beginning at Talk:Motion picture rating system#Color coding, and the apparent refiling of the same issue at RfC twice more right after the first one was closed. After closure of the first RfC, SlitherioFan2016 resumed making changes to the color scheme at Motion picture rating system that seemed contrary to the RfC that was just concluded. He seems to have made no effort to consult others before making his change. He made a series of large reverts beginning on 23 November that were mostly undone by others. Here is an example, and this is the edit summary: "I have a feeling that this scheme may help to solve the conflict between 8-color schemes and accessibility. Please feel free to notify me on my talk page if you disagree." What is the point of holding an RfC if he is just going to go ahead and do whatever he wants anyway? (The RfC had just decided to use a 5-color scheme to favor accessibility). EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is the November 24 ANI thread that led up to the current block. The same behavior was also summarized by Betty Logan in an AN3 complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I know that I understand that accessibility is not optional and takes a higher priority that aesthetically attractiveness, but why is that? Why can't we just propose a new 8-color scheme in the table instead? Betty Logan once said in the original RfC: "Even if [SlitherioFan2016's] point was justified—that reducing an 8-color scheme to 5 colors is too much of a conpromise—then the colors that are available could be better utilised to make the table more accessible than it is now." I still feel this way, and really hope you can help me with it. SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Appealing to admins to support your content changes isn't going to work. You need to listen carefully to what the other editors are telling you on the talk page. It seems you won't take 'no' for an answer. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Or in this case I need to read carefully what other editors are telling me on my talk page. Ha ha! (I can be a bit of a comedian sometimes) SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you should sit out your block and stop wasting people's time, it's only for one week after all. That said, I am still open to exploring other possibilities and if you are prepared to work constructively and commit to not making unilateral changes then I think there may be a way forward to constructing an 8-color scheme within the framework outline at Category:Articles with images not understandable by color blind users using color shades. If you are prepared to work constructively towards a solution within the framework of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines then we can discuss this once your block finishes. Betty Logan (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comments

Hello slitherioFan I was wondering whether you'd like to join the discussion on motion picture rating colors. That would be very much appreciated.--101.174.128.107 (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy to! SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thx!!--101.174.128.107 (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)