User talk:Panix comics

January 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Marshall Rogers. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I put up an RFC and he ignored it. I asked him for consensus, and he has refused. There is not much else that can be done. I am not the one engaging in edit warring. I just fixed standard grammatical errors, and organized the material.

An RFC is a request for outside editors to comment; you should have just discussed the matter with him on the article's talk page. It also looks like you're doing more than fixing grammar errors, so that's all the more reason to explain the changes. That's what the WP:BRD cycle emphasizes: you made a bold change, but it was reverted, so now you need to discuss the proposed changes. —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the changes have been explained in the edit comments. If one was unintentionally left out, please point it out, and I will fix that. When an editor accuses another of not being eligible to edit an article, and starts a discussing not focused on the content, but on the author, in my experience in life, that is not someone open to discussion. I think I explained the reasons for the reversion. Also, I disagree that it is a bold change. Two small piece of information was added to the article, which was the addition of Terry Austin to credits for the Batman incarnation, which is correct and leaving him off would be incorrect, and the addition of Mr Miracle work. The rest of the article is the same information, just organized according to way all other biographies. It doesn't seem he even read the changes. He didn't even take the time to notice that the author is deceased. Nothing that was done should have been the least bit controversial, and yet here we are.

Your talk-page behavior

Before we can move forward, you have please got to change your talk-page behavior at Talk:Marshall Rogers. It is forbidden to edit other editors' posts or to break up other editors' posts and insert you own comments in the middle, as you did here, here, and here, or to change or remove another editor's subhead, as you did here. Also, please add your signature and timestamp on the same line as your final sentence, and not flush left, which goes against MOS and makes the page harder to read.

And finally, it is impossible to have a discussion if you refuse to familiarize yourself with the MOS. And a sentence like "Rodgers was born in Flushing Queens, NY on January 22, 195, but grew up the Westchester suburb of Ardsely, NY" violates not only Wikipedia style but also basic grammar and punctuation.

But first things first. Please go to Talk:Marshall Rogers, remove your comments from my posts, and please place them chronologically at the end of the page and properly indented and signed before we can move forward. I'm restoring my original subhead. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't know how to talk or work with people. Posting within a message is normal and don't fix my changes. And don't lecture to me how to post. I am very offended by your general behavior and disregard for others.

for you information, I will never read this page again, so you now have no need to post anything here. All communication between us is to be public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panix comics (talk • contribs) 07:09, 16 January 2018‎

Everything on this page is public. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tenebrae (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I fight a block?

How do I fight this block?

This block was imposed based on this thread and was apparently placed after a checkuser investigated and determined this is a sockpuppet account. --Yamla (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

This is my only account. I have dial up access with panix in NYC. I don't know Mrbrklyn personally. I don't think we have ever met and I have trying to play by the rules. The result has been harassment by email, and now this. You are making it very hard for normal people to interface on Wikipedia. You have to make this a full time job and make this your sole employment when confronting obsessive editors.

Decline reason:

I think you are confused. We are all volunteers here. None of us are employed by Wikipedia and it's nobody's job at all, let alone a full-time job. Note also that your block is based on more than just being on the same ISP. You are welcome to request another admin review your block, though. Yamla (talk) 13:12, 18 January 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I don't think I am confused. I've seen a blizzard of admin complaints while trying to work with an editor misrepresents others uses and spends more time writing complaints that discussing thing and this is topped off by being accused of being someone I am not. This is an unjustified block. And that thread is a pack full of lies that can not be answered while block. You have editors and admins here 24/7 who have rapped themselves around the manipulation of an endless number often contradictory rules and complaint. And if they can't find one admin to take up their case, they move on to the next one until they get there way. Tenebrae is a particularly dishonest editor, if not psycotic. 120,000 edits in 10 years is obsessive behavior. If you don't unblock me, then you let his falsehoods stands, and his subpar articles to continue. He has accused me of being rude for the crime of disagreeing with him. I am dedicated to only discuss the content of articles if unblocked, as I have.

Decline reason:

Continued personal attacks will ensure your unblock will be rejected. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:32, 18 January 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.

It is not even possible to bring this to the arbitration committee

I've revoked your access to this page because of the personal attack in the above unblock request. You may use WP:UTRS to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user has engaged in block evasion as 173.52.38.97 (talk · contribs), an IP address previously tied to Mrbrklyn (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]