There is a problem with the Fly For Fun article, especially in the "worlds" section. The grammar is terrible, and the "Unknow World" section needs to be deleted. I'm not sure how to fix it. Kirmuii (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All you need to do is click the "edit this page" tab up at the top of the article, make whichever changes you feel are necessary, and then click on the "Save page" button below the edit box. I suggest using "Show preview" first, to make sure everything works properly, though. Cheers. lifebaka++19:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiport ANIs
Greetings to all. I'm sure some are aware of the now three ANI entries that Blaxthos has levied on me. I think it is clear that Blaxthos and I have differing opinions, although I don't believe it warrants constant ANI entries. I have not attacked him, or degraded his character in any way. I think it is clear that he is using the ANI process to further this feud which quite frankly doesn't need to exist here. I believe that these constant attempts to have me blocked is contrary to the existing philosophy of this section. I would be appreciative if this issue of constantly reporting me could be addressed. He is reading a bit too much into this, to the point of accusing me of making condescending quotation marks! Thanks Wikiport (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen many concerns regarding the speedy G10 deletions of the FNC article I made a little while ago. I should have researched it a bit more, but I was mistaken thinking that people would vote on it. I was corrected by Pedro. I know I don't know everything here regarding Wikipedia, but I do think a couple of growing pains are natural. I am passionate about the issues that I believe are important, as I believe many editors are. This feud with Blaxthos is quite simply childish on both sides. I believe much has been taken out of context, and elevated to a point where it doesn't need to be. My goal here is to address the FNC article, and edit a couple other of articles which interest me. My goal is not to perpetuate a "back and forth" argument with Blaxthos in a community setting. We disagree, yes; but, that's how progress is made in history. It isn't made by silencing one side of the table. Thanks again..Wikiport (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Wikiport, you should be autoconfirmed, so if you could just reply at the ANI thread itself it'll probably be easier. Cheers. lifebaka++23:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reposting, I'll make it my final rebuttal here, if you could repost again hehe, the first time I replied to the actual thread I erased or reverted come comments, I didn't want to repeat that. >>I don't wish to continue the back and forth. Blaxthos, it is clearly a feud ok? I am not trying to play nice in the wake of a 3rd ANI. I believe you are a bit quick to nominate here quite frankly. Otherwise, I have explained my prior actions. I did nominate the FNC for speedy deletion, prior to me actually understanding it - which was addressed and corrected by Pedro on my talk page, in fact, I thanked him for his patience and viewpoint. I never accused you of "sock-puppetry", I stated I had SEEN controversy regarding the issue which I quoted. You explained what I saw on your talk page. Now, I have tried to establish sections within the talk page of FNC to address this issue, which you continue to perpetuate a back and forth argument. I understand there is a consensus, I am challenging that consensus in the wake of new information given current events and objectivity. I appeal to you to stop this silliness and move on. You have been in constant argument with several editors, that's apparent to see in your history. Please stop the back and forth on the FNC talk page, and move it to my page if you want to continue slamming me for being a novice and etc. etc. Thanks..Wikiport (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guy has resorted to conflict of interest acts. 1) 'making the complaint yourself and immedialy blocking it yourself is wrong.' here. 2) In the similar manner Guy participated as an editor influencing the discussions on a framed sanction on Naadapriya then passed the judgment and resorted to blocking on the same issue as Admn. this discussion:It is wrong and clear conflict of interest. It is like acting as one of the Plaintiffs and the judge on the same issue. Naadapriya requests Admns to null Guy's decision as Admn on sanction. Naadapriya (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The removal of that opinion wouldn't change consensus on the issue. Besides, that's a community discussion, and Guy was merely carrying out what appears to be the community's will on the subject. Cheers. lifebaka++22:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guy participated from the beginning of the event as an editor that has led to framed sanction which will be protested. During the discussions Guy has dragged unrelated personal statements from my user's page which other editors also used it to attack me. Guy's comments have influenced and encouraged other users to persuade a wrong procedure to resolve a content issue which otherwise could have been settled based on consensus based voting. Passing the judgment as an Admn on the same issue and also blocking on related matter are clear conflicts of interest. To the best of my knowledge it is wrong as per wikipedia guidelines. I will rebut the issues that led to the make believe consensus separately. This ANI is to null Guy's inappropriate actions as an Admn. Allowing such actions will set an wrong example to scholar quality archival information of Wikipedia. Guy should have left other editors to conclude and decide if sanction procedure by ad-hoc group was valid or not. Therefore please NULL Guy's concluding decision on the sanction and the notice that he posted on my talk page as an Admn. ThanksNaadapriya (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't. He still read consensus right. So, all I can reasonably do itis back up the application of a topic ban. I'll look into Guy's actions later, however. Cheers. lifebaka++14:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Guy was intensively involved in arriving at the consensus. Thanks for your effort to follow-up on this. Being a Jr editor I do not understand 'reasonably do it back up the application of a topic ban '. Please explain. Naadapriya (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Please explain what does 'So, all I can reasonably do is back up the application of a topic ban.' in the present context. Also please let me know possibly when you can look into Guy's action. Since the obvious conflict of interest actions by Guy have significantly influenced the framed sanction, I need to include it in my appeal if sanction is not reversed by Admns here. ThanksNaadapriya (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be overturning it. Having reread the discussion, consensus is clearly that a topic-ban is appropriate. Beyond that, it is not my place as an admin to defy the will of the community.
I also just looked over Guy's actions regarding this. He doesn't appear to have done anything wrong. He participated in an RFC on the article, and then notified you of the sanctions, which clearly were forming a snowball. Having been involved in the one doesn't preclude the other. So, you should include it into your appeal if you still feel that it is an issue, but I'm relatively sure it isn't. Cheers. lifebaka++16:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This ANI was not to overturn the framed sanction. It is to address the Conflict of Interest by Admn. Responses are drifting away here. ' doesn't appear ' ?? Guy has explicitly walked the opinions through from the beginning. Following the Admn's Etiquette Guy should have excused from any Admn related action. Guy's final conclusion and notice as Admn are not ethical. Please provide answer to ANI issue. Without nulling the Admn improper role it is almost impossible to proceed with an appeal on the framed sanction. Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naadapriya has continued to engage in distraction fallacies and misrepresentations, and is now continuously beating a dead horse and forum-shopping. He was blocked and sanctioned for disruptive editing (and atrocious POV pushing). The reason he thinks it is impossible to have the sanction overturned is because there's nothing to justify it. The next step after a topic ban is a community ban. I suggest he cease with the disruption and move on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks me just within about 37 minutes after Ncmvocalist posts an ANI to block me
Acknowledged that it was done without reading the comment which clearly showed my edit was not a revert.
Completely ignored the edit protect decision made by Georgewilliamherbert just about 5 minute back on a related matter.
Making a major decision to block within such a very short duration of time, not reading the comments and ignoring the other Admn action just minutes before are very unusual. It takes a while to make such a drastic decision of blocking that too without knowing the article.
In addition Admn Guy endorses the blocking within about 20 minutes. Guy was never involved in any of the past related discussions
All above decisions by Admns have been made within unusually very short period of time regarding a content dispute that is going on for months, that too when they were not involved any of the past discussions. Such unusual chain actions by Admns discourages and unnecessarily misleads to think otherwise many Jr editors like me. Admn need to investigate what led to such hasty decisions.Naadapriya (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything obviously bad going on there. Appears to have been a proper block. Looking at the article, both you and User:Ncmvocalist appear to have been in a revert war, and blocking is acceptable in such cases. It only takes a few minutes to verify these things. Cheers. lifebaka++15:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that deliberate reverts results in immediate blocking. Please see the history. Mine was not a revert. I added back a section (which was there for months with consent of many editors) that Ncmvocalist had deleted without any discussions. Ncmvocalist's action was concluded earlier by erachima as vandalism (here). Though one can accept the decision by Georgewilliamherbert to edit protect the full article to cool things, singling-out me for blocking by LessHeard vanU (who just had intimate transaction with Ncmvocalist on other matter) and instantaneous endorsement by Guy (who participated in the framed sanction later) are highly questionable. Hope Admns investigate it in depth. That action has led to further intensify personal attacks by Ncmvocalist and also might have even served as an encouragement for framing a sanction. Though nothing can be done about the expired unjustified blocking, throwing light on the issues will prevent others to follow similar actions. Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The three revert rule only doesn't count "blatant and obvious vandalism", not content disputes, which that appears to have been. I suspect you're beating a dead horse here. If you'd like to appeal the topic ban, I suggest you compile your evidence and drop a line to the Arbitration Committee. Cheers. lifebaka++
Please note just before my edits Ncmvocalist more such acts. Still I was singled-out by LessHeard vanU who just had intimate correspondence with [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist] on other issue. Yes, I am working on rebuttal on the framed sanction. This issue and my rebuttal are separate. This is about questionable Admns role. horse is not dead . Admns' impartial, diligent, objective and careful roles (that were missing in this issue) are keys to continued success of wikipedia. I may leave this here hoping that Admns look into it further which is needed for future healthy editing articles. Naadapriya (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not imply that Ncmvocalist should been blocked not me. To date I have not posted a single ANI to block any editor. Always I have worked towards consensus and reasonable compromise on extreme content disputes. Here I am questioning Admns improper blocking approach. You stated 'proper block' but did not comment on three observations I made. No one has explained including LessHeard vanU why blocking was done in a such a hurry without even reading comments and contradicting another Admns action that happened minutes before. Hope some one clears the air soon. Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between blocking edit warriors and full protecting an article during edit wars is usually admin discretion. When there are fewer editors involved in a war, blocks are often better, as they allow other editors to continue working on the article in peace. Only you and Ncmvocalist were involved in this one, and you had been warned on August 30 about the three revert rule, so a block was more appropriate than protection of the article. Hope that explains it. Cheers. lifebaka++16:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'blocks are often better, as they allow other editors to continue working on the article in peace '. What! is wikipedia is a charity group to allow a selected editor to work in peace pushing POV. Please explain if not the whole discussion will be inconclusive. Looks like answers drifting from the purpose of ANI and are becoming evasive. Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary - this discussion is conclusive. Naadapriya has continued to engage in distraction fallacies and misrepresentations, and is now continuously beating a dead horse and forum-shopping. He was blocked and sanctioned for disruptive editing (and atrocious POV pushing). The reason he thinks it is impossible to have the sanction overturned is because there's nothing to justify it. The next step after a topic ban is a community ban. I suggest he cease with the disruption and move on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
