User talk:Starigniter

100 Greatest of All Time

Do not edit war on the naming within this article. There is a long standing consensus within the tennis project that we do not edit war between the usage of 'Grand Slam' and 'major' as it is a waste of editor time and effort. Both are perfectly acceptable and are widely used and sourced. If you wish to discuss this please do so on the central tennis project talk page.--Wolbo (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Slam terminology

I do not really like or use the term Grand Slam to signify an individual major tournament. This is an error with the term made many years ago that has perpetuated itself into common lexicon. But while I look at it as if using the term "ain't", there is no doubt that it is in common usage and is actually used by the four major tournaments. It is plastered all over the press. In interviews I hear the players use the term "Grand Slam" and "Major" interchangeably. Books do likewise. Even the ITF uses the term Grand Slam tournament. Websters also tells us it's acceptable (although it's the second choice). In prose at wikipedia, so as not to confuse with winning a Graf/Laver style Grand Slam, we should always use the term "Grand Slam tournament", but in a chart this is almost always just shortened to Grand Slam. Major is also fine to use but changing just for the sake of changing doesn't serve anyone's interest. And the term "Major" has it's problems also as many writers throw the term major around as pertaining to important tournaments, not just the four Majors.

In the particular case at 100 Greatest of All Time, the only column I had a problem with was the last column because the Pro Slams and ILTF Championships are not called Grand Slam tournaments. Majors is a better fit there when talking about all those tournaments collectively. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree with that change.--Wolbo (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Evibeforpoli (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Then I won't waste further time on you" — "definitions from dictionaries are not relevant, but I'm a hypocryte so here's one from another one just to make my claim" Evibeforpoli, 05:24, 23 August 2024

Still lying, huh? Starigniter (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Starigniter!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!

It's gonna be difficult though, because sometimes general definitions are totally ommitted and dissmissed in the name of someone with big ego and poor imagination thinks he knows better (the Evibeforpoli "dictionaries don't matter but here is the difinition I found in other one" case), but I'll try my best. Starigniter (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Euryalus (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notably here and here. No views on who is correct in the actual content dispute but there's no justification for pointless rudeness. This is a short block to prevent further personal attacks. You're welcome to resume editing when it expires, but please avoid personalising disputes and instead comment only on the article content. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course there are good reasons to unblock me, since I didn't make any personal attack whatsoever, because calling liar a liar is not offensive at all, it's just speaking the plain truth. The fact of the matter is that no liar likes to be called a liar as per, an the same goes with a thief, killer and others.

But you know what? I don't care, I have better things to do and I can wait that 31 hours, no problem.

And also I think I can learn from that, contrary to that genius, who doesn't think that definitions from a dictionnary are relevant, but later he was quoting some other poor dictionnary (sic) just to make his claim, so...

Thank you for informing me, Euryalus. Starigniter (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you've been using the time while blocked to make more personal attacks, so the block duration has been extended to indefinite. Appeal options are per the above template. All the best. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a joke of a statement that is, but anyway... Starigniter (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you write "indefinite" if it's actually not possible to undo the block ("Unblock requests that contain personal attacks or incivility against others will be declined and may lead to being blocked from your talk page.")? Starigniter (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what next?

ABG asked for TPA Removal and Ponyo kinda declined it by typing "I don't see where the user has made any further personal attacks after the block was extended to indefinite." Starigniter (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, "I notice you've been using the time while blocked to make more personal attacks", please show me where exactly I made "more personal attacks", because I think you simply overdone it. Starigniter (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are ingnoring me or recently you simply had no time, but I decided to appeal anyway and I will also register a complaint against you because of your unjustified decisions and potential ignoring me. Starigniter (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

The 1st block was justified, but the 2nd one was notStarigniter (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The initial block failed to alter your attitude or behavior, which continued on this very page. That led to the extension of the block, which is absolutely justified. Since you don't think you did anything wrong, there are no grounds to remove it. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2024 (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.

Although I agreed and accepted the 1st block, in my opinion the 2nd one was simply overdone and not OK. That 1st one with 31-hour block had a reason to be executed and activeted, but not the the nex one. I disagree with Euryalus who claims that I've been "using the time while blocked to make more personal attacks". I did not. I didn't attack anybody since then and that is the reason I belive the 2nd block was not justified.

Moreover, I asked Euryalus to show me where I made those allegded personal attacks and (s)he did not respond at all.

Also, the other editor Ponyo wrote "I don't see where the user has made any further personal attacks after the block was extended to indefinite." (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Ponyo#c-AlphaBetaGamma-20240905231200-TPA_Removal)

So, there is no reason nor evidence to uphold the block. Please consider the undo. Starigniter (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Another administator did not point out the evidence for unjustified block Starigniter (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did wrong first time and that let to the block, and I agreed with that and I accepted it, no problem, OK.

But since then I did no wrong. Administator 331dot is another one after Euryalus who didn't even try to come up with evidence. The latter simply wrote out of nowhere "I notice you've been using the time while blocked to make more personal attacks" which is not true, because I didn't attack anybody (it stopped after the first block).

There is no evidence, not even slightly, to uphold the block so please remove, because with out the evidence it is simply unfair. On what grounds the block is upheld if I did not attack anybody?

Please, let it be an administator that will read more than one sentence. Starigniter (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The second block was entirely justified; you doubled down on the personal attack while blocked. I've read the whole interchange. This. This. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:29, 23 September 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did not violate any of the 7 "personal attack" types (and please hurry up!) Starigniter (talk) 9:03 am, 23 September 2024, Monday (1 month, 5 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

This should have been declined at the time of the TPA revocation. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:07, 28 October 2024 (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.

First of all, I would like to congratulate jpgordon for at least pointing out the alleged evidence, unlike two other admins, but I still disagree, because none of the 7 points was in use and here is why:

1) not a single phrase based on race, sex, gender identity

2 & 3) zero cases of using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem and someone's political affiliations

4) no linking to external attacks

5) Comparing editors to Nazis, terrorists, dictators etc. was never in existance

7) no threats at all

6) "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" also do not check the box, because I had the evidence, twice, in all two cases.

On 23 August 2024 Evibeforpoli wrote to me "Then I won't waste further time on you", but then, on 25 August 2024 (s)he posted a notice on my talk page, so (s)he wasted time on me. So what is it called? Yes, this is the plain evidence of lying. (S)he wrote she won't waste time on me but did the exactly opposite.

Moreover, the same editor dissmissed my contribution to one page writing that pointing out the definition is not good... and then pointed out the definition from another dictionnary to claim his/her point... So, again, what is it called? If someone uses double standard that if I use the definition is wrong and invalid, but when (s)he does exactly the same suddenly it is not only right, but also valid? That hypocrisy, so that makes the editor a hypocrite.

As you can see, none of the 7 points was triggered. And because it's 7 out of 7, please undo the block. Starigniter (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed the end of that section. These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. WP:NPA#WHATIS --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you are absolutely right when you wrote "you seem". Because it only seems like I missed it, but I didn't.

I did not attack him/her at all. Writing a plain truth is not an attack. If I wrote that a convicted murderer named AX BY is a criminal who kills people would that be an attack or not? Of course not.

I caught Evibeforpoli both lying and being a hypocryte and I have the evidence in both cases. And you only did nothing but also performing a mental gymnastics to sweep this under the carpet.

And now what? Are you going to delete my account just because I called your actions "a mental gymnastics" because you are doing so? That's just pathetic. Starigniter (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The First Rule of Holes very much applies here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

--jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]