I don't care about the recent page I will be coming back soon.
I overreacted over ONE person being unreasonable. And I'm not giving up, that person who got unjustly banned in 2012, I will bring him some justice even if I have to resort to making a YouTube video about it. His worst crime was to have a weird name but he followed all the rules. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does wp still use ads in 2024?
Resolved
Listen in this day and age ads are absolutely necessary to keep the site around. Running a big site is extremely expensive. And I fear the site might not be around for much longer if the owners don’t implement an ad system.
In 2003 sure plenty of ad free websites work. But now in 2024 unless you’re a billionaire running a huge site without ads is close to impossible. And I am still frustrated the website tried to force it on me to give donations instead of using ads.
The {{helpme}} template is for questions on how to use Wikipedia, not for commentary on why Wikipedia works as it does. Your suggestion is a perennial proposal that has been consistently rejected; you can read more at is entry on the list of such proposals.Writ Keeper⚇♔04:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The requests for donations run by WMF on Wikipedia generate more than enough revenue to keep the servers running. WMF uses the excess for various ideas that may or may not be seen as productive.
I guess that means that Wikipedia is not really ad-free at this point. But at least the ads are tied to the service in a way that is not likely to cause revenue concerns to affect content or editorial concerns.
Using {{help}} templates to engage in conversations like this one is just one more way you seem to be out-of-step. Please spend more time on improving the project, in whatever ways you are able. — jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)04:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I am considering leaving for good and want my entire revision history gone. If I can’t even ask for legit advice without getting into trouble this site isn’t worth it. I don’t care if you ban me. I’m here to read not to edit. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Writ Keeper's reply was reasonable, letting you know that the community has talked about this before and linking you to the discussion. And they didn't mention anything about blocking you. Is it possible you are over reacting a little? –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: you have not indicated that to other users at the top of your talk page. Now, it seems like an excuse because you only brought it up when multiple editors gave you a reasonable response. I already gave you guidance on how to be a better contributor. If you continue your behavior, you may be blocked. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/$14:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not respond to polite honesty about their mental health with threats of blocking. I think the conversation can end here for now with no action. Let's give some space. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blaze, honest question, do you think a removable block here would give you enough mental space? I'm going for one pretty soon (for different reasons). Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not just thinking about myself here I am thinking at behalf of everyone else and the companies. And if I saw an inappropriate ad I would just ignore it. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This idea that we are in financial trouble is incorrect. We have an excess of donations and place them in an account called the meta:Wikimedia Endowment. Also ads go against the open source movement's ethos. For these two reasons i don't think there's any plans or interest to switch from donation banners to ads. Hope this explanation makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I recommend you close the WP:XRV discussion. I don't want to assume anything here, but I can't help but notice you are probably not at your best right now. I'm not going to get into the why and how and such, but I will recommend that maybe you need to voluntarily take a break from editing at Wikipedia while you are feeling this stressed. Hell, I'm due for a break myself (already planned), this place can make you oversensitive and reactive, and it can lead to problems with other editors. What I don't want to see is you getting stressed, taking things out of context or out of proportion, and getting blocked. I use a quote from Douglas Adams on some forums, in part to remind me to stay focused on what is important. It is "I'd far rather be happy than right any day." Sometimes to be happy, you need to walk away for a bit, get some perspective, clear the cobwebs, and start over down the road. If editing isn't making you happy, you need to do something else for a while, for your own sake. Just my 2¢ worth. Dennis Brown - 2¢13:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone reverted, but I closed it without action, based on your obvious desire to withdraw. I need to nod off, it is getting late where I live. Whatever it is that makes you happy, brings you joy, that is the direction we all should go in. Take your time, think about it. The encyclopedia will still be here. Dennis Brown - 2¢13:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am very serious about leaving this site for good IF one more admin is needlessly harsh on me.
I have had enough, all I want to do is help, but I can't with all these admins threatening me. So if it happens one more time I will be gone, and only will be here to watch stuff going on. The people in charge of the website enforcing this can seriously go fuck themselves. I refuse to help a site where no user is safe from harsh criticism, this is why I vandalized the Obama article in 2012. I had to be banned so I don't accidentally do something wrong when editing.
I hate doing this, but I feel I must at this stage. Please take a break, come back in the future when you are less upset and stressed, then talk to me. I recommend waiting at least 6 months. If I am confident that your situation has changed and that you will be able to contribute in a constructive manner, I would be happy to unblock you. It is my hope that we get there, in fact, but right now, you need to not be editing here as you've become disruptive to an unacceptable level. You aren't doing yourself any good being here either, which is not the reason for the block, but it is obvious. Of course, any admin is free to modify or remove this block without prior permission, but please understand the reasons for the block first. Dennis Brown - 2¢06:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're not going to make many friends by posting to highly watched pages about how corrupt we all are (without evidence) and by trying to revive a decade-old drama. I was inclined to let it slide when you did this at WT:ADMIN, WP:XRV, etc. the first time, but now it has happened again. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep me banned.
Honestly I'm beyond sad at the current state of Wikipedia.
It was once a website where most people can go there comfortably and edit articles.
But in more recent years admins have mostly become overly harsh. I know it's wrong to generalize but I had to, I had no choice. I had to do it because it's beyond sad to me how much downhill the site has become. Don't unban me any time soon, please. I can't afford to accidentally damage an article that's why banning me is something that needed to be done. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. Disrupting Wikipedia by calling out "corrupt admins" at WP:ADMINS with ZERO evidence isn't going to do you much good. So I echo Dennis's advice; come back when you're ready and ONLY when you're ready. If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/$17:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listen what I did a few days go was uncalled for. I should have assumed good intentions instead of calling the site what I did. If I don't want to edit I have the choice of not editing. It's up to you guys if you believe me, but I really am sorry.
Also it was pointless to bring something up that happened to a user over a decade ago. That person has likely moved on as real life is more important than Wikpedia.
And honestly, I take full responsibility of never being allowed to edit here again. Trying to get banned is a bad idea. Of course if you forgive me or not is up to you, but just know I legit am sorry. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Blaze.
If you read the block message, it's NOT saying that you can never edit here again. It's specifically saying that you are going through some off-line stuff and it's a good idea that you don't edit Wikipedia right now. When your life stabilizes, which is hopefully in the near future, make an unblock request and I can bet you'll get a fair hearing.
You just don't want to dig yourself into a deep hole that is impossible to get out of. Think of this as an enforced WikiBreak...when you are feeling calm and the desire to be a productive editor returns, then we can deal with this. If it helps, I'm an admin and I've taken two long Wikibreaks, one for six months while I was a new editor and later for two years a year after I became an admin. I can say for sure that I wouldn't be editing now if I hadn't taken those WikiBreaks. Sometimes you just need some time away. Wikipedia will still be here in six months or a year from now. Take care of yourself. LizRead!Talk!03:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that Wikipedia has also gone down in some respects, so I agree with some of what you are saying. Again, any admin can review the case, although I am pretty sure none are going to consider an unblock in the near future. You should wait 6 months, and work on real life things first, and I am confident you will find admins to be receptive. Believe it or not, we want you back, but only when you are ready and able to be productive, and that takes time. Unblocking you now could end up resulting in your getting blocked again, but permanently. As I said above, I'm planning a break myself. Going to travel a bit, and try to forget the place for a while. Dennis Brown - 2¢13:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it ok if I go to Icelandic Wikipedia during my ban? Or should I avoid WP period until the ban expires.
tl;dr: yes. You should have a look at WP:STANDARDOFFER based on the discussions above. You are blocked indefinitely but not banned by the community (you can read about the differences in the blocking and banning policies, if you're really interested), and only from English Wikipedia. It's pretty rare for someone to be banned and is usually the result of a long community discussion, and it is incredibly rare for anyone to be banned from all Wikimedia projects. Editing other Wikimedia sites without issues during your block can be a good way to show that you're able to edit constructively here if you decide to appeal your block. We call blocks like yours "indefinite" because they are not meant to be permanent. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many in the community would actively like to see you've been editing productively and nondisruptively on other projects when you are making an appeal. It's actually helpful to your appeal for you to have been doing so. Valereee (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm laying off the Icelandic wikipedia for a bit.
I want to type in English for help over there and I'm not sure if that's allowed or not, most likely not. So until my Icelandic legit gets better I'm letting it go. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Chris Stuckmann notable enough for an article on the Icelandic wiki?
I'm taking a break from Wikipedia and this time I'm sticking to it.
I don't know when I'll be back or if I will be. However it's clear that I shouldn't be editing articles in my current mental state. So bye for now. It's not a good idea to get to the Icelandic wikipedia either, to avoid getting into more trouble I have to avoid editing there as well. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I screwed up big time and I'm sorry
I have been thinking about this for more than a month, and I should have since the start READ the rules before doing anything on this site. Assuming bad in the admins was uncalled for. I am not expecting to be unbanned but just know I am very sorry. There was no excuse for doing that. I promise and this time I'm sticking to it, I won't return until after I have read all the rules and important guideline pages. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may not even need to read all the policies and guidelines, which get out of date anyway and sometimes lack nuance. Just be willing to assume good faith (believing that all editors want wikipedia to succeed and are doing what they think is best to achieve that goal) will go a long way. "Reading the room" is a good skill on wikipedia and in life. If most others disagree with you on something, even if you think you're right, even if you ARE right, most of the time it is just not worth the friction and drama to oppose them. Especially when it is a 10 year old issue. I think an unblock request could succeed soon with the right attitude. On talk pages, just be flexible and have an open mind and I think it will go a long way. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said how I acted earlier this year on here was inexcusable. What exactly can I do to prove I really am sorry and want to make up for it? Since I am banned I can't really prove anything by making good edits, how else can I prove I can be useful on this website? Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good unblock request on this page using the {{Unblock}} template is a good next step. A "good" unblock request would be one that shows you understand why others are upset with you and convinces others that it won't happen again. You can also talk a bit about all your many positive contributions to Wikipedia and how you'd like to go back to doing edits like those. I have to imagine most of your 11,000 edits are positive. WP:GAB may also provide helpful advice. I believe you are "blocked" not "banned", which is an important difference. Any admin can reverse a block. A "ban" involves a community discussion at AN/ANI and cannot be as easily reversed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:00, 24 July 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).
Saying that the admins were corrupt was uncalled for, and it was based on NOTHING. Look, none of what I'm saying are justifications or excuses but instead an explanation on why I acted so irrationally.
For most of the year, I dealt with many mental issues and that caused me to think irrationally. Again, that does not excuse how I acted as I should have known better.
If I'm unbanned I promise I won't cause any trouble, and just watch pages and join discussions if there is something good I can contribute. And I do plan on reading the policies and this time it will stick. I know I said I would but didn't.
I was never a great editor, back in 2007 I didn't really help the site much and caused trouble. I am better now, or at least I should be. And even if the article itself doesn't have all the information I need I can easily learn more by the revision histories that's what the best way to learn more about stuff I love.
Lastly I have one promise, and I will do my best to stick to it. I will not make intentionally bad edits again, ever. The site deserves better, and the site has more information than I gave it credit for.
The first thing on my mind not directly after I get unbanned but when I'm ready for it is to translate the Bogi Ágústsson article from Icelandic to English so it will be full of information.
Lastly, I am gonna lay off the HelpMe template big time. All of you who said I abused it are right. In fact I won´t use it at all unless I´m really struggling, if I need help going to the right sections to ask for it is a better idea.
Lastly, IF this request is denied I will accept it and just read revision histories. It's not a big deal if I won't translate the Bogi Ágústsson article from the Icelandic wiki I'm sure someone else might do it. I wouldn't put it past me as he is one of the biggest celebrities in Iceland. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Sorry, given that there have been repeated issues over the course of more than a decade and multiple blocks, I see enough in this request and the following discussion with Grabergs Graa Sang that raise concerns about your ability to contribute constructively if unblocked. signed, Rosguilltalk18:24, 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.
Bogi Ágústsson is an article that absolutely could use improvement, but I hope you know that per WP:BLP etc, just adding uncited translated text from the Icelandic WP is not the way to do it. You need to dig out the WP:RS, read them, and then cite them as you go along. And if you can't cite it, don't add it. "It says so on Icelandic WP" is not an argument for inclusion, see WP:RSPWP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I will forget about it. I will just leave the article as is, as I don't have enough personal knowledge on Bogi himself to know what sources are reliable and what aren't. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need personal knowledge about him, but you need an understanding about what is WP:RS for a WP:BLP, and the willingness to try to find them and cite them. You can write a quite decent WP-article even if you never heard of the subject before (and not knowing anything can be somewhat helpful since it'll probably make you neutral).
Like I said I will totally accept it if the unblock request is declined and I stand by that. I will just be reading the revision histories, I don't really need to edit anything. I know I screwed up and I take full responsibility for it, this conversation doesn't need to continue. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note from blocking admin
First, I made the block and my statement hold true, that any admin may change the block without my permission. Understand, this is a complicated situation, but I will simply stay neutral to the idea, with the understanding below.
WP:Wikipedia is not therapy, so I don't want to dig too deeply here, but I think it is pretty safe to say you have some issues that you need to work on in your personal life. Believe it or not, at least half the people on Wikipedia (estimate) are in a similar situation, so you aren't alone, but you did let your issues get you in trouble. Many people with different struggles come here and get in too deep, and spiral downwards. The place becomes a net negative for their life. Often, this is because they spend too much time here, and it becomes too large a part of their life; they get too emotionally invested for their own good. I can't say for sure, but I get the feeling that was the case with you. Just a guess from the gut. This wasn't the reason for the block, but there was some empathy involved in the decision, as the block was equally in the communities best interest, and your own. It was an unusual circumstance for me.
Here is what I would recommend (and I won't make it a condition, as again, I'm neutral, but another admin might): If you are unblocked, I think you need to limit yourself to no more than two hours per day here, editing. From first edit to last edit, per 24 hour period. I'm not a doctor, ok? I know this, but I think you are prone to getting sucked up into the drama and you would benefit from a hard break each day, no matter what is going on. You need to learn (or remember) that your contributions can be helpful, but none of us is so important that we can't walk away until tomorrow. Me, you, Jimbo, none of us. The encyclopedia won't break. Most decisions take more than a day anyway. You need to find something else to do for the other 22 hours a day. My gut says you're really a good person, but you need some discipline to deal with whatever you are dealing with, and maybe this would give you a fighting chance. Maybe imposing it will benefit us all. That's about all I have to offer, I will leave the rest up to fresh eyes, who are free to consider or ignore my thoughts. Dennis Brown - 2¢10:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I plan on editing even less than that. I will only be editing when I really can contribute something useful, so for the most part I won't edit for at least a week, and will just watch the revision histories and won't do anything. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually recommend you still spend the other 22 hours doing something that doesn't involve Wikipedia at any level. ie: not reading it, not watching histories, not editing, not anything. This isn't exactly enforceable because we can't guess what you are doing if you aren't editing, but it is something I want you to strongly take to heart. I've been here a long time, I've seen stuff. I'm asking you to trust my judgement in this. Get a 2nd and 3rd hobby, and make this place only a small part of your free time. Dennis Brown - 2¢07:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add something to what Dennis Brown said above. I'm an editor who has had to deal with depression and some other mental health issues myself. There isn't anything wrong with taking an extensive break to address your problems. Although I've mostly been around on-wiki, I've reduced my responsibilities and there were times where I would avoid looking here for days to reduce stress. I still have close wikifriends who I talk with on social media but we'd discuss other things.
During April I took a break and went to the Simple English Wikipedia, which was less stressful since the policies were less complicated and the community was smaller. If you feel like you could edit constructively, I definitely would recommend the limit of one to two hours a day maximum as Dennis suggested, and potentially trying out one of those smaller projects. This is to add on to the above where several users suggested you might try those other projects to increase your chance of being unblocked in the future. But I wouldn't edit anywhere unless you're certain that you're in good enough condition and that it would not cause you undue stress. Does this make sense? Hope you get better soon, Fathoms Below(talk)19:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(In reply to Dennis Brown) I appreciate the advice on how I shouldn't be reading revision histories, but the reason I do is because I do get new knowledge about the subjects that interest me when I do that. That is the main reason I want to read revision histories. I do learn a lot about a subject by reading revision histories on Wikipedia. Also I do have a main hobby, it's making videos on YouTube. It really doesn't take long to keep up with revision histories. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(In reply to Fathoms Below) Honestly I think it's best that I don't edit on any version of wikipedia period. I can completely accept that I got banned outside my user talk page. I appreciate the advice I really do. But editing here doesn't mean that much to me. I think I will just stick to reading revision histories. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
